🚨 New policy memo on the US ICBM force!

Key takeaway: Biden should immediately launch a review of the role of ICBMs in nuke strategy, and either cancel or reduce the scope of the GBSD program.

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Alternatives-to-the-GBSD-Feb.-2021.pdf

ICBM Information Project webpage 👇 https://fas.org/issues/icbm-information-project/
ICBM Information Project

The ICBM Information Project aims to put together a comprehensive, unclassified picture of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, while challenging assumptions about the history, purpose, and utility...

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Alternatives-to-the-GBSD-Feb.-2021.pdf
I've previously written in @Forbes about why I think the US needs to pause the GBSD program.

And increasingly, high-ranking officials are concerned about the program’s increasing costs, tight schedule, and lack of 21st century national security relevance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewkorda/2020/04/21/congress-should-hit-pause-on-the-new-intercontinental-ballistic-missile/?sh=66c5b99e109a
Congress Should Hit Pause On The New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

The Air Force is moving to fast-track a key award in an attempt to lock the program in as soon as possible. But ballooning costs, doubts over the continuing relevance of ICBMs and the upcoming...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewkorda/2020/04/21/congress-should-hit-pause-on-the-new-intercontinental-ballistic-missile/?sh=66c5b99e109a
In this new policy memo, I propose 4 possible alternatives to the GBSD program of record:

1) Pursue GBSD at reduced force levels;
2) Pursue Minuteman III life-extension at current force levels;
3) Same as above, but at reduced force levels;
4) Cancel GBSD and phase out ICBMs.
1) Pursue GBSD at reduced force levels (i.e. 300 instead of 400):

âś…
- Lower force levels wouldn't affect stability and could open new arms control paths
- Alleviate pressure on NNSA to produce warheads & pits

❌
- Less $ saved than other options (R&D costs the same as today)
1) Pursue GBSD at reduced force levels (i.e. 300 instead of 400):- Lower force levels wouldn't affect stability and could open new arms control paths- Alleviate pressure on NNSA to produce warheads & pits- Less $ saved than other options (R&D costs the same as today)
1) Pursue GBSD at reduced force levels (i.e. 300 instead of 400):- Lower force levels wouldn't affect stability and could open new arms control paths- Alleviate pressure on NNSA to produce warheads & pits- Less $ saved than other options (R&D costs the same as today)
2) Minuteman life-extension at current force levels:

âś…
- Could push the GBSD decision decades into the future, *after* the budget crisis ends
- Way cheaper than GBSD
- If test rate was adjusted, ICBM inventory won't dip below 400 until 2050

❌
- Less $ saved than other options
2) Minuteman life-extension at current force levels:- Could push the GBSD decision decades into the future, *after* the budget crisis ends- Way cheaper than GBSD- If test rate was adjusted, ICBM inventory won't dip below 400 until 2050- Less $ saved than other options
2) Minuteman life-extension at current force levels:- Could push the GBSD decision decades into the future, *after* the budget crisis ends- Way cheaper than GBSD- If test rate was adjusted, ICBM inventory won't dip below 400 until 2050- Less $ saved than other options
2) Minuteman life-extension at current force levels:- Could push the GBSD decision decades into the future, *after* the budget crisis ends- Way cheaper than GBSD- If test rate was adjusted, ICBM inventory won't dip below 400 until 2050- Less $ saved than other options
2) Minuteman life-extension at current force levels:- Could push the GBSD decision decades into the future, *after* the budget crisis ends- Way cheaper than GBSD- If test rate was adjusted, ICBM inventory won't dip below 400 until 2050- Less $ saved than other options
3) Minuteman life-extension at reduced force levels:

âś…
- Pros of options 1 and 2 combined
- Under current test rate, ICBM inventory won't dip below 300 until 2060

❌
- Less $ saved than final option
3) Minuteman life-extension at reduced force levels:- Pros of options 1 and 2 combined- Under current test rate, ICBM inventory won't dip below 300 until 2060- Less $ saved than final option
3) Minuteman life-extension at reduced force levels:- Pros of options 1 and 2 combined- Under current test rate, ICBM inventory won't dip below 300 until 2060- Less $ saved than final option
3) Minuteman life-extension at reduced force levels:- Pros of options 1 and 2 combined- Under current test rate, ICBM inventory won't dip below 300 until 2060- Less $ saved than final option
3) Minuteman life-extension at reduced force levels:- Pros of options 1 and 2 combined- Under current test rate, ICBM inventory won't dip below 300 until 2060- Less $ saved than final option
4) Phasing out ICBMs entirely:

âś…
- Wouldn't meaningfully affect deterrence (70% of US nuclear force remains on survivable submarines)
- *Significant* savings ($120 billion through 2046)
- Could redirect those savings to create millions more jobs in-district
4) Phasing out ICBMs entirely:- Wouldn't meaningfully affect deterrence (70% of US nuclear force remains on survivable submarines)- *Significant* savings ($120 billion through 2046)- Could redirect those savings to create millions more jobs in-district
4) Phasing out ICBMs entirely:- Wouldn't meaningfully affect deterrence (70% of US nuclear force remains on survivable submarines)- *Significant* savings ($120 billion through 2046)- Could redirect those savings to create millions more jobs in-district
4) Phasing out ICBMs entirely:- Wouldn't meaningfully affect deterrence (70% of US nuclear force remains on survivable submarines)- *Significant* savings ($120 billion through 2046)- Could redirect those savings to create millions more jobs in-district
4) Phasing out ICBMs entirely:- Wouldn't meaningfully affect deterrence (70% of US nuclear force remains on survivable submarines)- *Significant* savings ($120 billion through 2046)- Could redirect those savings to create millions more jobs in-district
Adopting any of these 4 options as an alternative to the GBSD program would save billions of dollars, would not harm US national security, and—as evidenced by FAS’ new polling—would be widely supported by the American public on a bipartisan basis. https://twitter.com/mattkorda/status/1357714932113014786
Team Biden should launch a National Security Council-led review examining the role of ICBMs in US nuclear strategy.

This review should also consider the future of the GBSD program––one of the alternatives in this report may be the best way forward.

👉 https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Alternatives-to-the-GBSD-Feb.-2021.pdf
You can follow @mattkorda.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.